Mad at the FCC? Use this code to create your own “slow lane” on the Web

Widget forces site visitors to wait... and asks them to complain to Congress.

The Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote on a controversial "fast lane" proposal Thursday, and it's inspired a bunch of people to protest by slowing down their own websites.

Last week, a Web hosting company called Neocities throttled its home page, and MaxCDN gave customers the option of doing the same—but this only slowed websites down for people connecting from an FCC IP address. Now, there's an easy way to throttle your website for everyone who visits.

"The FCC could soon let Internet providers charge websites to access a bogus 'fast lane' and slow down every site that doesn't pay," Feld wrote. "Do you want a slower Internet? Neither do we. Show the world what the FCC's 'slow lane' looks like by embedding the #StopTheSlowLane Widget on your site!"

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says his proposal won't actually allow slow lanes. Internet service providers would be able to charge Web services for faster access to consumers under his plan, but non-priority content would travel at the same speed as it does today, he argues.

Many network neutrality proponents aren't buying that, of course, as you can see with this snarky widget they built:

Imagine sitting at a restaurant and the waiter (ISP) takes your order and charges your credit card. Next you ask

You: "how long will the food be?"

Waiter: "It depends. See, the cook who is making your eggs paid me extra, so I'll bring that right up. But unfortunately, the cook that makes the meat hasn't paid me to bring you the food any faster.Your meat will be cooked right away, but it'll sit on the counter until I take my time to get it and bring it to you"

Cool! I already submitted my feedback on the fast lane proposal (14-28) pushing for Title II/Common Carrier but hopefully this widget will get more people to submit feedback.

Also check out Senator Ron Wyden's AMA on Reddit!. Remember in addition to sending feedback to the FCC (via the widget mentioned in the article or directly) to contact your congressmen and congresswomen!

Good luck. For some reason, Google and other big players seem intent to sit this one out. Even though they have as much to lose as Netflix, or any other content provider that competes with the incumbent ISP/Content providers like Verizon, Comcast, or AT&T. I can see ISP's deliberately nerfing Youtube to get Google to pay up just like Netflix.

Good luck. For some reason, Google and other big players seem intent to sit this one out. Even though they have as much to lose as Netflix, or any other content provider that competes with the incumbent ISP/Content providers like Verizon, Comcast, or AT&T. I can see ISP's deliberately nerfing Youtube to get Google to pay up just like Netflix.

Not too sure of that, Google and Facebook are firmly entrenched in most peoples web usage, the ISPs aren't going to muck with them when it could easily result in them being dropped en mass

Good luck. For some reason, Google and other big players seem intent to sit this one out. Even though they have as much to lose as Netflix, or any other content provider that competes with the incumbent ISP/Content providers like Verizon, Comcast, or AT&T. I can see ISP's deliberately nerfing Youtube to get Google to pay up just like Netflix.

Not too sure of that, Google and Facebook are firmly entrenched in most peoples web usage, the ISPs aren't going to muck with them when it could easily result in them being dropped en mass

Apparently, there's still things that would surprise you. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if, once allowed, they would have the "fast lane" be whatever speed the user would be accustomed to, and the "non-prioritized lane" dropped as low as 56K. Welcome back to the age of dial-up, now with an always-on connection!

Good luck. For some reason, Google and other big players seem intent to sit this one out. Even though they have as much to lose as Netflix, or any other content provider that competes with the incumbent ISP/Content providers like Verizon, Comcast, or AT&T. I can see ISP's deliberately nerfing Youtube to get Google to pay up just like Netflix.

Not too sure of that, Google and Facebook are firmly entrenched in most peoples web usage, the ISPs aren't going to muck with them when it could easily result in them being dropped en mass

Might also have to do with the fact that the ISP's aren't competing with Google or Facebook. They are directly competing with Netflix however.

I have no idea how something like a "fast lane" that results in "non-priority content [travelling] at the same speed as it does today" would work?

How are they going to measure that the speed isn't changed relative to today? Do ISPs just have Gobs of bandwidth not being used, that they are holding back for an eventual "fast lane"? (Bandwidth is measured in Gobs and GigaGobs, right?

This is almost guaranteed to result in a worsening of service, but in a way that's almost impossible to prove, so consumers will suffer, corporations will benefit and congress can lean back with the satisfaction of a job well done. Or, done.

I don't understand why, in this day and age, internet access isn't being afforded the same status as electricity and water. At least in Denmark, we're increasingly required to be able to access the internet. Starting in November this year, every citizen over 18 is required to have an E-box, a digital postbox which the government can communicate with you, for instance.Having a neutral delivery network is absolutely required.

The reason that internet access isn't being treated as a utility is because the people making decisions are technologically illiterate. It might be that classifying it as a utility means they can't get as much tax from it.

For reference Australia has a National Broadband Plan, which is supposed to bring FTH to every urban house in the country and high-speed wireless to rural areas, sounds good. I recently learned that the funding it got from the government only covers leasing/access to existing telephone/copper pits and the build out in urban areas, revenue from leasing initial build out once it's running will pay for the rest of the network, it's not a bad plan.

But the kicker is this, when I learned of this it was in articles about how the 3rd largest ISP in the country (TPG, which only provides IP telephotography, not the traditional stuff, it doesn't get press as a telephone company) is planning to build it's own FTH network in urban areas, undercutting the NBP

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says his proposal won't actually allow slow lanes. Internet service providers would be able to charge Web services for faster access to consumers under his plan, but non-priority content would travel at the same speed as it does today, he argues.

Can someone with more knowledge on this subject please explain to me how ISPs can create a slow lane without reducing the speed they have today?

I was always under the impression that everything came down the pipes at the fastest possible speed so the only way to implement a two tier service would be to throttle the slow lane whilst keeping the fast lane at the current (fastest possible) speed it is today.

For reference Australia has a National Broadband Plan, which is supposed to bring FTH to every urban house in the country and high-speed wireless to rural areas, sounds good. I recently learned that the funding it got from the government only covers leasing/access to existing telephone/copper pits and the build out in urban areas, revenue from leasing initial build out once it's running will pay for the rest of the network, it's not a bad plan.

But the kicker is this, when I learned of this it was in articles about how the 3rd largest ISP in the country (TPG, which only provides IP telephotography, not the traditional stuff, it doesn't get press as a telephone company) is planning to build it's own FTH network in urban areas, undercutting the NBP

This is not technically true. The Australian NBN was slated to be a full FTTH rollout for 93% of Australia's households, but that was recently scrapped by an incoming government and replaced with a watered down, shitty 'Multi-Technology Mix' which is now, for the most part FTTN and the old HFC network, rather than the technologically superior FTTH.

As a result of this change, TPG announces that they would roll out FTTB for MDU's in areas close to their own Fibre networks that already exist in an attempt to cherry pick areas that are looking to receive no upgrade at all under the new system. Under the old system, they had no incentive to do this because NBN Co would have eventually overbuilt and charged theoretically lower prices. This is no longer happening and TPG decided to do something about it.

Are there any major sites that are using this? The great thing about the SOPA blackouts was the large number of sites it affected-- Reddit, Wikipedia... heck, even Google got involved. If we could get all of those sites to implement this for just a day or two, there'd be a massive outcry against this.

Of course, I can't see Google doing this. Perhaps a Doodle that takes twenty second to load, but nothing more. Wikipedia might do it, though. And how about Ars?

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says his proposal won't actually allow slow lanes. Internet service providers would be able to charge Web services for faster access to consumers under his plan, but non-priority content would travel at the same speed as it does today, he argues.

If there is a fast lane, is there not by definition a slow lane??

It is a priority traffic lane. Not quite the same thing as a high speed traffic lane.

When there is no congestion, all traffic is equal in speed. When there is more traffic than then the connection can deliver, the high priority (fast lane) traffic is delivered. The rest uses whatever available bandwidth is left over. If the hi-pri traffic manages to clog the connection ... say a streaming video on a slow connection then competing traffic may be cut off altogether.

Can someone with more knowledge on this subject please explain to me how ISPs can create a slow lane without reducing the speed they have today?

I was always under the impression that everything came down the pipes at the fastest possible speed so the only way to implement a two tier service would be to throttle the slow lane whilst keeping the fast lane at the current (fastest possible) speed it is today.

Am I wrong?

I assume it would be similar to how you can set a router up with priority access for certain applications, providing a stable connection for, say, VoIP, while letting webpage loading taking a backseat in priority.

Imagine sitting at a restaurant and the waiter (ISP) takes your order and charges your credit card. Next you ask

You: "how long will the food be?"

Waiter: "It depends. See, the cook who is making your eggs paid me extra, so I'll bring that right up. But unfortunately, the cook that makes the meat hasn't paid me to bring you the food any faster.Your meat will be cooked right away, but it'll sit on the counter until I take my time to get it and bring it to you"

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says his proposal won't actually allow slow lanes. Internet service providers would be able to charge Web services for faster access to consumers under his plan, but non-priority content would travel at the same speed as it does today, he argues.

If there is a fast lane, is there not by definition a slow lane??

No Sireee Bob! All we're going to have is Fast! & Really REALLY FAST!!!

Super Premiere Priority Partners of our new Very Bestest Ever Friend, The ISP, can also pay to have ponies, rainbows, ice cream or a complimentary order of bread sticks delivered with our discontent de jour on the uber supremo miracle networks that our new Very Bestest Ever Friend, The ISP, is going to ever so diligently innovate up for us.

The reason that internet access isn't being treated as a utility is because the people making decisions are technologically illiterate. It might be that classifying it as a utility means they can't get as much tax from it.

No, it's because the system is corrupt and those that want the rules to be in their favor bribe make contributions to those that make the rules, and they don't even try to hide it any more.

Lobbyists should not be allowed to hold positions of power that has any influence over the industry they lobbied for, and people that hold positions of power should not be allowed to work for the industry which they regulate[d] or approved mergers for.

Edit:

[holdsbreath]ISPs in the U.S. should be classified as Title II AND the last mile infrastructure should be mandated to be open to any and all providers seeing as large sum of tax money, tax breaks, easement rights, etc. were given to these clowns to build it. Let's see what actual competition can accomplish.[/holdsbreath]

The reason that internet access isn't being treated as a utility is because the people making decisions are technologically illiterate. It might be that classifying it as a utility means they can't get as much tax from it.

For reference Australia has a National Broadband Plan, which is supposed to bring FTH to every urban house in the country and high-speed wireless to rural areas, sounds good. I recently learned that the funding it got from the government only covers leasing/access to existing telephone/copper pits and the build out in urban areas, revenue from leasing initial build out once it's running will pay for the rest of the network, it's not a bad plan.

But the kicker is this, when I learned of this it was in articles about how the 3rd largest ISP in the country (TPG, which only provides IP telephotography, not the traditional stuff, it doesn't get press as a telephone company) is planning to build it's own FTH network in urban areas, undercutting the NBP

Ugh. Biting tongue because all the problems you indicate are entirely due to the current government trying to undo anything the previous government did, good or bad.

You know, this could backfire on the ISPs nicely. If Netflix has a contract with Comcast to deliver Netflix content to Comcast customers at a speed of no less then 100 mps, why should the customer pay for more then say 10mps, Comcast has to provide those Netflix streams at 100 mps, or THEY violate their contract with Netflix

I noticed in all the time this has been a very real threat. The major news stations that are usually on at work haven't given it more than a passing mention. Instead they are focusing way too hard on that ridiculous story of the coach that belongs on "E Insider" and not a major news network.

I love this protest. We need the major hosting services to get on board with it to really show the world what the FCC's internet will be like.

I just don't get how a venture capitalist/lobbyist who was also the President of the National Cable Television Association and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association being nominated and confirmed as the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission isn't exactly like appointing John Gotti as the Director of the FBI.

We pay you money, you reinvest in infrastructure, pay your employees and fill a couple C level execs with steak, and give them a big wooden desk to stfu from behind.

The only filtering you do is against spam and ddos.

If you charge us a reasonable rate for good service, we'll literally let the bill autopay till we're dead. You own a money printing press essentially, and if that's not enough you are either greedy or too stupid to make it work.

Finally, you are only content providers in the sense that you can work with other ISPs/content providers to restrict access and charge for "exclusives" via your cable tv arm, or by undercutting your optimal product "dumb stupid pipe"

ISPs don't seem to understand that to the consumer, their product is optimally a dumb pipe, with some perhaps mildly dumb tech support.

They know that. And that's why they're beating the propaganda-drum and invest heavily in "lobbying".Being a dumb pipe doesn't earn you money. Charging both sides of the connection, extorting the customer and the services and "optimizing" the current infrastructure (read: never invest) does.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says his proposal won't actually allow slow lanes. Internet service providers would be able to charge Web services for faster access to consumers under his plan, but non-priority content would travel at the same speed as it does today, he argues.

If there is a fast lane, is there not by definition a slow lane??

Correct, and the reason they don't upgrade our service now is because they "don't have the capability" Yet, they have immediate "fast" lanes available all of a sudden?

If you're telling us you can't upgrade infrastructure.... yet telling us you can give us fast lanes for paid priority content... there's only way way the normal content can move.... SLOWER.

Correct, and the reason they don't upgrade our service now is because they "don't have the capability" Yet, they have immediate "fast" lanes available all of a sudden?

If you're telling us you can't upgrade infrastructure.... yet telling us you can give us fast lanes for paid priority content... there's only way way the normal content can move.... SLOWER.

Exactly, and I'm wondering if that moron Wheeler realizes that we can add 2+2 and come up with the correct answer.

If priority traffic = a, normal traffic = b, and max bandwidth = c,

a + b = c. (well, a + b <= c

As a increases, b MUST decrease unless you change c, which they are obviously unwilling to do unless forced at gun point, which the chairman of the FCC is obviously unwilling to do as a previously paid shill for the CITA and the NCTA.

This quote from his confirmation as head of the FCC is rather ironic considering his current stance on fast/slow lanes... and I quote:

Tom.Wheeler wrote:

"What excites me about this new responsibility is how we are at a hinge moment of history; the Internet is the greatest communications revolution in the last 150 years. We must all dedicate ourselves to encouraging its growth, expanding what it enables, and assuring its users’ rights are respected."

You know, this could backfire on the ISPs nicely. If Netflix has a contract with Comcast to deliver Netflix content to Comcast customers at a speed of no less then 100 mps, why should the customer pay for more then say 10mps, Comcast has to provide those Netflix streams at 100 mps, or THEY violate their contract with Netflix

I don't think it will work that way. Comcast won't guarantee any speed of delivery to their customers (because congestion or datahogs or something like that), so while they may be happy to take Netflix traffic at 100mps, they'll be equally happy to deliver it to their customers at 56kbs. Or less. Or more if you cough up a lot of extra cash to get their "megaultrahighspeedxfiinitywithonlyunreasonabledatacapsinsteadoftrulyinsanedatacaps" package.

This x1,000,000. Instead of gay rights, and climate change (which is never why I browse Ars) how about tackling a political cause a good majority of the readership can actually get behind.

Or even better, less politics and more sci/tech.

There is a reason Ars has a "Law and Disorder" section, it is important and relevant information. There are lots of people that believe climate change is an imperative topic and people must know what is happening.